GEP-4012 - Godoc improvements

[rikatz]

What type of PR is this?
/kind gep
/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds the memorandum GEP on how implementor should be writing API documentation, in a way to reduce the CRD size, the burden on Gateway API users and still provide meaningful information for other developers

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #4012

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

[rikatz]

/cc @kflynn @candita @Miciah @shaneutt

[k8s-ci-robot]

@rikatz: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: Miciah.

Note that only kubernetes-sigs members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

In response to this:

/cc @kflynn @candita @Miciah @shaneutt

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[rikatz]

and
/cc @youngnick

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rikatz
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign danwinship for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[robscott]

This is really great content, thanks @rikatz! To me, this feels like something that doesn't really need to be a GEP though. I'd be very open to making this a direct addition to our docs, maybe something resembling https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/contributing/devguide/.

[shaneutt]

I agree memorandum may not be a great fit, and that the dev guide does seem like a reasonable fit.

I suggest we reformat this content under the devguide, tagging it to the bottom.

Then, we may want to create a follow-up issue to look at general improvements to that section, if we're unhappy with it.